On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 16:25 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:> > Anyway. For now I will simply go with what 2.6.23-rc has and what> > 2.6.21 had: No dma_set_mask anywhere in the 1394 subsystem. We can> > revisit this whenever an actual need arises.> > Not sure this is a very good idea. This seems rather likely to fail on> x86_64 machines with >4GB of RAM for example..

Would it ? Isn't the default DMA mask for PCI devices set to 32 bitsanyway ? In which case, swiotlb will take care of the matter.